|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Poettering: Rethinking PID 1

Poettering: Rethinking PID 1

Posted Apr 30, 2010 19:08 UTC (Fri) by efexis (guest, #26355)
In reply to: Poettering: Rethinking PID 1 by ThinkRob
Parent article: Poettering: Rethinking PID 1

It was NextStep before it was OSX wasn't it? Which was one of Jobs' side projects to pass time while he was booted out of Apple, so the codebase is a lot newer to Apple the company than it is Apple the man(ish). The impression I get is that with them, more effort went into the design of the interface and associated paradigms and the actual underlying code isn't really anything special (excuse if that sounds loaded, I personally can't stand the machines, clash of mindsets, but am trying to keep it objective, see?*) so in that sense I guess where the various bits of underlying code that they didn't develop themselves are from is more incidental - it's not what they're about. But this is just an outsiders observation, plz no one flame :-p

(*excuse the terrible programmer pun!)


to post comments

Poettering: Rethinking PID 1

Posted May 2, 2010 18:07 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Please consider that there is only so ->||<- much real innovation a given group of people can come up with in a reasonable timeframe. Sure, everybody toots their "innovation", how "this year's car is completely different from last year's"... While under the hood they have the same engine, the same steering system, and so on. The only real change is cosmetical (or replacing last year's radio by another model).


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds